Evolutionary Science-v- Creationism

[OnyxCougar]

more

Every year, river (7) and other sources (9) dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year. (8,9) As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today’s input and output rates. (9) This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, 3 billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations which are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years. (9) Calculations (10) for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean.

(7) Maybeck, M., ‘Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans’, Rev. de Geol. Dyn. Geogr. Phys. 21 (1979) 215.

(8) Sayles, F.L. and P.C. Mangelsdorf, ‘Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater’, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 41 (1979) 767.

(9) Austin, S.A. and D.R. Humphreys, ‘The sea’s missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists’, Proc. 2nd Internat. Conf. on Creationism, Vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991) in press. Address, ref. 12.

(10) Austin, S.A., ‘Evolution: the oceans say no!’ ICR Impact No. 8 (Oct. 1973) Institute for Creation Research, address in ref. 21.

[Undertoad]

You do realize that everything you're posting is just really bad science, right? Let's poke holes in theories we don't understand using half the information available?

[OnyxCougar]

Prove it's half the information. Provide evidence to support or disprove the statements made. Cite.

Edit to add:

Why do you call it "really bad science"?

[Undertoad]

The problem is not in the cites, it's in how they're used.

Your post #485, for example, uses cites to determine the nature of a small part of the entire big picture of geology, and then makes a massive, UNCITED leap in paragraph three.

That's not science, it's dumb people trying to understand things without looking at the overall picture because the overall picture doesn't fit their conclusions.

It's as if one took measurements of the rate of cars driving down the highway between 8 and 9am, and made a massive leap to say that more cars drive east than west which proves that there is a car deficit in the west.

So they say they have shown sediment of dirt rolling into the sea. Where, then, are their cites which show how other geologic processes create MOUNTAINS of dirt OUT of the sea?

Duh?

It's all about your starting presuppositions and the way the evidence is interpreted. If you throw away some of the evidence, or just prefer to ignore it, you can come to any conclusion you like. Probably the wrong one though.

[OnyxCougar]

ok, lets look at the post.

First two paragraphs gives rates of accumulation and subduction, which you said you don't have a problem with the cites, so we'll assume that's correct.

Third paragraph, first sentence lists a posit of the evolutionary theory.

If the first two paragraphs (with cites) are correct, and the rates stayed the same, then the referenced posit of the evolutionary theory cannot be correct.
Would you agree with that?



edited from:
then the evolutionary theory cannot be correct
to
then the referenced posit of the evolutionary theory cannot be correct.

[Undertoad]

All theories face the same level of harsh judgement. If there isn't enough information given to prove one way, there isn't enough to prove the other way either.

[OnyxCougar]

I agree completely. I didn't mean the above posts to imply this "PROVES" creation, but instead, poke more holes in ET.

One of the posts before, from wolf's link, says that if you can disprove a theory, you have to throw that theory out and start over.

How many holes do people have to poke before we should say it's not a good theory?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

Agreed. But that's not new information. That is mutation of the same information. Show me where we get an E and we'll talk about gain of information.

When C' and C" are eventually different enough, you can call one of them E.

[Torrere]

All theories face the same level of harsh judgement. If there isn't enough information given to prove one way, there isn't enough to prove the other way either.

There are, however, methods of evaluating which theories are more likely to be correct, such as Occam's Razor, checking for internal consistency, review by third parties (harsh judgement), and logic.

I'm not sure whether Onyx accepts building evidence out of pre-existing evidence by 'doing the math'.

[Troubleshooter]

I just downloaded one of his videos and I'll post a review when I'm done.

http://www.drdino.com/index.jsp

Welcome to DrDino.com
Welcome to Creation Science Evangelism. Here at CSE, our goal is to share the gospel of Jesus Christ to those who have not heard, and to strengthen your faith if you are already a believer. We do this by showing how Science actually gives glory to God by supporting the Biblical account of creation. Please enjoy our website as you learn, or shop in our online store.

[wolf]

I love this. It was in "Witnessing Tools"

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by wolf

I love this. It was in "Witnessing Tools"

Look here:

http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/emblems.html

[wolf]

Nice assortment. They have certainly expanded!

Nice Isis.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Troubleshooter

I just downloaded one of his videos and I'll post a review when I'm done.

http://www.drdino.com/index.jsp

Welcome to DrDino.com
Welcome to Creation Science Evangelism. Here at CSE, our goal is to share the gospel of Jesus Christ to those who have not heard, and to strengthen your faith if you are already a believer. We do this by showing how Science actually gives glory to God by supporting the Biblical account of creation. Please enjoy our website as you learn, or shop in our online store.

I've heard of him. He has some "controversial" theories that many creationist disagree with, and AiG and Kent Hovind have gone a few rounds. I'm one of the people that stands firmly on the AiG side, because they have actual scientists and reasearchers, and Kent Hovind has a questionable honorary doctorate, and was a high school teacher.

In addition, Kent Hovind should wear the tin-foil hat in public. He gets rather political with his "new world order" ideas. In short, he has some good stuff mixed in with alot of bad stuff, and makes it harder for proponents of the good stuff.

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally Posted by sycamore

I think that God created everything...in a way similar to what is described in the evolution theory.

Ok...not sure if this will cause the globe to wobble on its axis, but I agree with Sycamore. I believe in a creator, by whatever name one chooses to call him, her, or it, and I think that if that creator chose to create the world through evolution, who's to say no?
Evolution just seems logical to me, and considering the perfection in the way things are made, in how they fit together, etc. I know that if I were doing such an experiment, I'd start it off and then let it go to see what happened. Who's to say the creator didn't do the same?


For all we know, God's gonna get graded on this, and we're screwing up his Cosmic GPA with all our silliness and stupidity....



Sidhe